The result was No consensus. Wal ton Need some help? 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is NOT a discussion page. Make your comment and leave other editors' comments alone. If you want to engage in a discussion, please do so at the discussion page.
- According to WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, this is a discussion page, and responses to other editors are ok. The response instructions are:
If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).
- It appears to me that Pedant17 was constructively invited to intersperse comments to Lsi_john's bullet points because Lsi_john used 5 tildes (date only) to identify the end of each such point, which I assume was done in experienced anticipation of such interspersed responses.
- However, I think Pedant17 then did go too far within other Lsi_john comments not identified and thus invited, in interspersing these responses keyworded: "provision for rebuttal"; "other side opinions"; "alleged prejudicial nature"; and "related to popular culture". (Note that certain other Pedant17 responses should be indented, though any editor is free to do that for him.)
- If necessary, we can debate whether Pedant17's acceptance of an apparent invitation to intersperse responses is appropriate, given that there is a formatting instruction for responses, and that an AfD page must be kept reasonably readable and identified by editor.
- If Pedant17 did go too far, I think the appropriate remedy would be, at a minimum, to collect Pedant17's uninvited interspersed responses into a terminal set of signed paragraphs, each having a signature of 03:46 2 May, and placed just under Lsi_john's signature of 20:55 1 May, but above Pedant17's paragraph keyworded "reminiscent of McCarthyism", it also having a signature of 03:46 2 May.
- If there is consensus, I call for Pedant17's responses to be moved back from the talk page in the format I've suggested. Milo 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You assume incorrectly. I tagged my 5 ~'s without wiki knowledge, with the intention of identifying what I had changed within my own text, but not feeling it was necessary to clutter with full signature. If that was incorrect. I apologize. Lsi john 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responses are OK within some limits, and these have been kept. Larger discussions are better had at the discussion page. Pedant interspersion was not OK, and have been moved to talk. He/She can reformat his comment, summarize them and put them back if he/she wishes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Procedural listing. Correcting malformed nomination by Kkrystian. Serpent's Choice 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
"the French Report principles confirmed, with some form of cultwatching rightly understood, form a basis-in-principle, that something like List of groups referred to as cults can and should exist at Wikipedia" --User:Milomedes|Milo
The result was No consensus. Wal ton Need some help? 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is NOT a discussion page. Make your comment and leave other editors' comments alone. If you want to engage in a discussion, please do so at the discussion page.
- According to WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, this is a discussion page, and responses to other editors are ok. The response instructions are:
If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).
- It appears to me that Pedant17 was constructively invited to intersperse comments to Lsi_john's bullet points because Lsi_john used 5 tildes (date only) to identify the end of each such point, which I assume was done in experienced anticipation of such interspersed responses.
- However, I think Pedant17 then did go too far within other Lsi_john comments not identified and thus invited, in interspersing these responses keyworded: "provision for rebuttal"; "other side opinions"; "alleged prejudicial nature"; and "related to popular culture". (Note that certain other Pedant17 responses should be indented, though any editor is free to do that for him.)
- If necessary, we can debate whether Pedant17's acceptance of an apparent invitation to intersperse responses is appropriate, given that there is a formatting instruction for responses, and that an AfD page must be kept reasonably readable and identified by editor.
- If Pedant17 did go too far, I think the appropriate remedy would be, at a minimum, to collect Pedant17's uninvited interspersed responses into a terminal set of signed paragraphs, each having a signature of 03:46 2 May, and placed just under Lsi_john's signature of 20:55 1 May, but above Pedant17's paragraph keyworded "reminiscent of McCarthyism", it also having a signature of 03:46 2 May.
- If there is consensus, I call for Pedant17's responses to be moved back from the talk page in the format I've suggested. Milo 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You assume incorrectly. I tagged my 5 ~'s without wiki knowledge, with the intention of identifying what I had changed within my own text, but not feeling it was necessary to clutter with full signature. If that was incorrect. I apologize. Lsi john 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responses are OK within some limits, and these have been kept. Larger discussions are better had at the discussion page. Pedant interspersion was not OK, and have been moved to talk. He/She can reformat his comment, summarize them and put them back if he/she wishes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Procedural listing. Correcting malformed nomination by Kkrystian. Serpent's Choice 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
"the French Report principles confirmed, with some form of cultwatching rightly understood, form a basis-in-principle, that something like List of groups referred to as cults can and should exist at Wikipedia" --User:Milomedes|Milo